PEEL, William Yates (1789-1858), of Bagington Hall, Warwickshire

The most talented of the Peel brothers after his elder sibling, the Conservative leader, Peel had not fulfilled his promise in the unreformed Parliament. After 1832 he twice more represented his family’s borough of Tamworth alongside his more distinguished brother, but his parliamentary career was curtailed by gout and the death of his beloved wife.

Like his brothers, Peel benefited from the largesse of his immensely wealthy father Sir Robert Peel (1750-1830), 1st baronet, receiving a settlement of £64,000 on his marriage in 1819 and a further £71,000 on his father’s death.1HP Commons, 1820-1832, vi. 716-20 (at 717). First returned to Parliament in 1817 after abortive careers in the church and the law, he vacated Tamworth for his brother Robert in 1830, transferring to Yarmouth, and then Cambridge University in 1831, before retiring at the 1832 general election.2Ibid., 716-20. Appointed a lord of the treasury in Sir Robert Peel’s first ministry formed in late 1834, Peel was returned unopposed alongside his brother for Tamworth at the ensuing general election, where he was received with ‘universal popularity’.3Dyott’s diary, 1781-1845: a selection from the journal of William Dyott, ed. R.W. Jeffrey (2 vols., 1907), ii. 187-8 (1 Jan. 1835). After promising to support his brother’s Conservative government, the increasingly immobile Peel was chaired while reclining on a couch.4Staffordshire Advertiser, 10 Jan. 1835. At a post-election dinner, William Dyott, a local Tory squire noted:

Poor William Peel suffering most seriously from the gout. He was carried into the room, unable to stand. There was great speechifying and much hilarity, but lacking elocution when compared to the Right Honourable Premier.5Dyott’s diary, ii. 190-1 (23 Jan. 1835).

Peel was, however, well enough to vote with his brother on the key party divisions of the following session, supporting Manners Sutton for the speakership, 19 Feb., endorsing the address, 26 Feb., and opposing Russell’s Irish church motion, 2 Apr. 1835. He opposed the Whig municipal reform bill’s proposed disenfranchisement of freemen, 30 June 1835, and backed Lord Stanley’s attempt to divide the Irish tithes and church bill into two separate measures, 23 July 1835. The following year he divided against the address, removing bishops from the Lords, and Whig reforms of the Irish church and tithes, 4 Feb. 1836, 26 Apr. 1836, 3 June 1836. Due to his poor health, Peel’s political activity was limited to major party votes and he retired at the 1837 general election, after telling Dyott that ‘the state of his health was such as to make it impossible to attend to his duty, and that the attendance when he was able at the House was such as greatly to contribute to injure his health’.6Ibid., 254 (24 June 1837). Dyott had previously noted that William and his brother Edmund were both:

miserably afflicted with the gout, neither having a sound leg to stand up on. The riches of the family does not exempt some of them from disease and trouble; these two owe their sufferings in some degree to their partaking to excess the luxuries of the table.7Ibid., 229 (23 Mar. 1836).

Despite his feeble health, Peel managed his absent brother’s re-election for Tamworth when he became prime minister for the second time, in September 1841.8William Yates Peel to Sir Robert Peel, 13 Sept. 1841, Add. 40488, ff. 341-2.

Peel unexpectedly reappeared as a candidate for Tamworth at the 1847 general election, declaring that there should be a ‘fair trial’ for free trade, which it would be ‘madness to alter’.9Staffordshire Advertiser, 24 July 1847. Despite these protestations, Peel had come forward at the behest of local agriculturalists and protectionists disgruntled with his brother’s repeal of the corn laws in 1846. Although they could not oust Sir Robert, William’s candidature was used to force the retirement of the other Conservative MP, who had also converted to free trade. One local businessman cynically suggested that Peel ‘wishes to sit again in Parliament & … he thinks he can do so for Tamworth cheaper than elsewhere’.10Charles Harding to Sir Robert Peel, 2 June 1847, Add. 40598, ff. 300-1. It is unclear whether Peel would have sided with the Peelites or protectionists as the death of his wife led him to resign before Parliament met. William had informed his local supporters of this decision before Sir Robert or Edmund, much to the latter’s annoyance.11Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, n.d., Add. 40599, ff. 427-8. Ultimately, the vacant seat was taken by the Whig Townshend family rather than the Peels, prompting Edmund to write of William:

I do not hesitate to say I am extremely vexed at his proceeding … I wish he had never asked my advice, as I particularly wished him to avoid any communication with the electors. William’s unfortunate propensity of wishing to be popular with all parties will cause endless contentions in the borough.

Between ourselves, William’s chief supporters were very unpopular in the town, … [Now] I see nothing for the future but violent contests, and all brought about by the jealousy which has been felt in William, placing himself in the hands of Major Bamford, and others, … In my opinion, from first to last, Will[ia]m has acted very foolishly.12Edmund Peel to Sir Robert Peel, n.d., Add. 40599, ff. 472-5 (at 472-3).

After his retirement Peel ‘led a secluded life’.13Gent. Mag. (1858), ii. 191. On his death in 1858 he was succeeded by his eldest son Robert Moore Peel (1821-78), who was a soldier like two of his three brothers, the other being a clergyman.14Burke’s peerage and baronetcy (1949), 1562-3.